Ghanshyam and 3 Others vs Arvind and 15 Others

By means of the instant review application the petitioner has sought review of an order dated 26.09.2026, passed in Matters Under Article 227 No.4590 of 2024, whereby the petition filed assailing the validity of an order dated 08.05.2014, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.4, Gonda in Regular Suit No.136 of 1991, whereby preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the suit was decided against the plaintiff and it was held that the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order by filing Revision No.127 of 2014, which was dismissed by means of an order dated 17.08.2024 and the order dated 08.05.2014, passed by the learned Civil Judge was affirmed.

¶10

Review of the order has been sought primarily on the ground that this court has not understood the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrika Singh and others Vs. Raja Vishwanath Pratap Singh and another : (1992) 3 SCC 90 properly.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the case of Chandrika Singh (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the question arises as to whether the land held by a bhumidhar is or is not being used for the purposes connected with agriculture, this question has to be referred to the Assistant Collector.

¶12

This court has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrika Singh (Supra) in para 6 and 7 of the order dated 26.09.2024 and it cannot be said that this court has not dealt with the petitioners plea regarding applicability of the ratio laid down in the case of

¶13

CMRA No. 111 of 2024

¶14

2

¶15

Chandrika Singh (Supra).

¶16

The learned counsel for the review applicants has drawn attention of the court towards para 17 of the judgment in the case of Chandrika Singh (Supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that it is not open to the Civil Judge to decide on its own the question whether the land was held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture. The Civil Judge has to frame an issue on the question whether the land in question is or is not used for the purpose connected with agriculture and send the record to the Assistant Collector for decision of the issue and thereafter the Civil Judge should decide the suit in the light of the findings recorded by the Assistant Collector.

¶17

In the present case, the Civil Judge has not decided any factual issue regarding user of the land and it has merely held that the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act and has returned the same for being filed before the appropriate Court.

¶18

The petitioners has pleaded that the land in question is recorded as bhumidhari land of the defendants and on a portion of the land the plaintiff's house is existing. The defendant has filed a written statement, wherein also it has been stated that the land in dispute is bhumidhari land of the defendants. It was pleaded in the written statement that no house of the plaintiff is existing in the land in dispute bearing Gata No.568. The plaintiff's house had fallen down and the defendant had given his hut to the plaintiff for being used temporarily and his status is that of a licensee. Therefore, there is no dispute between the parties that the land in question is recorded as a bhumidhari land and that some residential structure exists on a portion of the land. The only question involved between the parties is regarding title to the constructions existing on the bhumidhari land and there is no question involved whether any construction exists on the bhumidhari land or not.

¶19

In these circumstances, this court does not find any error, much less an error apparent on the face of record in its judgment and order dated dated 26.09.2026, passed in Matters Under Article 227 No.4590 of 2024. The review application lacks merit and the same is dismissed .

¶20

January 9, 2026 Ram.

¶21

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ghanshyam and 3 Others v. Arvind and 15 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghanshyam and 3 Others v. Arvind and 15 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sarvar Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Distt. Collector Distt. Sultanpur and 4 Others

Vikash Chandra Srivastava vs Prakash Chandra and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Upadhyay vs State Thru. Central Bureau of Investigation (Cbi) Lucknow

Ganesh Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Chandrika Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Nirmala Devi vs Civil Judge Junior Division Upper Khand Dist. Amethi and 5 Others